Health care patient benefits eligibility research system and methods

ABSTRACT

The software of the present invention provides a means for creating a file of unpaid claims for a service provider. The software is used to create one or more queries to compare information in the file of claims against records in a benefit provider&#39;s database to determine the eligibility status of the claim. A file is created containing each claim for which a matching record in the benefit provider&#39;s database is found, and the information from that matching record. A report can be generated from the file of matching claims and benefit provider records, so the claims can be submitted for payment by the service provider.

CLAIM OF PRIORITY

This application claims priority from U.S. Provisional PatentApplication No. 60/654,028 entitled “Health Care Patient BenefitsEligibility Research System and Business Method” filed on behalf of JohnWester, on Feb. 17, 2005 (Attorney Docket No. E-Scan Prov).

TECHNICAL FIELD

The invention relates generally to data processing software forinquiring and determining eligibility for reimbursement for patients bycomparing the patient information against a benefit provider's databaseof covered persons to determine if the patient is eligible for benefitsand, if so, associating the patient record with the matching record inthe benefit provider's database so the service provider can seek to bereimbursed for the services provided to the patient.

BACKGROUND

The provision of health care services in the United States has becomethe focus of much attention. With the costs of medical malpracticeinsurance spiraling, and the payments being made to health careproviders from benefit providers, including private and governmentinsurers being reduced continually, health care providers are finding itnecessary to get payments for all the services they actually render.

Unfortunately, many health care providers are not receiving compensationfor the services they render. This could be due to a number of factors,such as patients not having the ability to pay for the services, and/ornot having any medical payment system or insurance. In other instances,medical care service providers submit a request to determine if apatient is eligible for coverage under a private or government insuranceplan, but are told the patient is not eligible for coverage. Often,payment for services rendered is denied due to incorrect data entryabout a patient and/or the service rendered, through failure toassociate the information with the correct patient record in the benefitprovider's database, or other misunderstandings or mis-associations.

For medical care service providers, being denied payment for servicesrendered is problematic, and can, in some cases, mean the differencebetween profitability and a business that does not show a profit.Typically, such claims which are classified as not eligible forreimbursement are written off as bad debt for which collection cannot beachieved. Ultimately, these costs are either passed along to otherpatients by means of cost increases, or the care provided is cut back tosave or reduce costs.

Accordingly, a continuing search has been directed to the development ofmethods which can help medical care service providers maximizeidentification of patients who are eligible for private or governmentmedical insurance so the service providers can be reimbursed for claims.

Therefore, what is needed is a system and/or method for helping toefficiently identify claims for which the patients are eligible forhealth care benefits, which can be paid to the health care provider.

SUMMARY

Normally, claims for medical care are submitted to a patient's benefitprovider for payment. Prior to submitting the claim, the health careprovider will need to make an eligibility inquiry to determine whetherthe person for whom the service was provided is eligible for benefits;if not, payment to the health care provider will be denied. In manycases, the denial is because the information entered on the claimsubmitted to the benefit provider by the service provider cannot becorrelated with the information in the benefit provider's databasebecause the patient could not be located in the benefit provider'sdatabase due to inconsistencies. In some instances, this is due to adata entry error on the part of the service provider, benefit provider,or both. In other instances, the patient may not be eligible forinsurance coverage at the time the services are rendered, or when theeligibility verification inquiry is made.

While software already exists that will make an eligibility inquiry todetermine eligibility, and inquire as to correlation between records,there has been only partial success with automated eligibilityverification inquiries. The existing software has only limitedfunctionality and is not always effective or accurate. It will typicallyonly search for records in which the patient's name, social securitynumber and date of birth match a record in the benefit provider'sdatabase, and returns a list indicating only those patients for which anexact match has been found. It will not provide information as tonumerous other issues that are related to eligibility, such as whetherthe service rendered is one paid for by the benefit provider.Additionally, manual examination is typically not practical orcost-effective, given the volume of patient claims and records.

The present invention provides a software program that willautomatically, upon request, query benefit provider databases with avariety of different queries to find persons who are eligible to receivebenefits, and who match patients in a service provider's database forwhom services have been or may be provided. The software of the presentinvention will also automatically segregate those records for whichthere is a match between the databases for further processing, and canindicate the matching information found in the benefit provider'sdatabase. For example, the software of the present invention can inquirewhether the patient is covered by the benefit plan, whether the servicesprovided are covered by the benefit plan, and/or whether the provider isauthorized to provide services for persons covered by that benefit plan.

The software of the present invention also provides means for comparingrecords in the benefit provider's database against a service provider'sclaims and finding records that, while not a complete match, have apredefined number of parameters that match, such that upon furtheranalysis and correction, it may be determined that a patient claim iseligible for reimbursement and can be submitted to the benefit provider,and the service provider will be reimbursed for the services performed.The software of the present invention can easily reveal the field orfields in which there is a difference in the information between theservice provider's claim and the benefit provider's database, makingcorrection of any claim errors much simpler and making the presentinvention much more cost-effective than prior art which did not revealany such partial matches, or show errors that had caused a claim thatwas submitted to have been rejected, but only verified whether or notthere was a complete match.

The software of the present invention can also show whether the patientwas qualified to be covered by a benefit plan at the time the serviceswere rendered. In some instances, the patient was not eligible forcoverage at the time the initial inquiry was made, but becomes eligiblefor coverage at a later time, and the coverage is retroactive back to aperiod including the time at which the service provider renderedtreatment. If this retroactive eligibility is discovered and identifiedin a timely manner, a request for retroactive reimbursement can be madein some cases.

In other cases, even if the eligibility qualification is not discoveredin time to seek reimbursement, the un-reimbursed claims can be importantfor a health care service provider in determining if it is entitled toreimbursement under various government programs for treating uninsuredpersons, and to help the service provider keep accurate track of howmuch of such funding they might be entitled to.

The present invention can also be used to generate reports in a varietyof configurations, as to record matches found, to assist in identifyingerrors, determining sources of errors, and taking steps to preventsimilar future errors. A surprising number of matches between serviceprovider claims and benefit provider databases of persons eligible forreimbursement were found using the software of the present inventionthat were not found using prior art software. Even when the software ofthe present invention is used to query the same benefit provider'sdatabase for the same health care provider's claims, matches are foundthat were not found when the same or similar queries were previouslymade. These matches have resulted in tens of millions of dollars ofreimbursements for service providers that would have otherwise goneunpaid.

The foregoing has outlined rather broadly the features and technicaladvantages of the present invention in order that the detaileddescription of the invention that follows may be better understood.Additional features and advantages of the invention will be describedhereinafter which form the subject of the claims of the invention. Itshould be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the conceptionand the specific embodiment disclosed may be readily utilized as a basisfor modifying or designing other structures for carrying out the samepurposes of the present invention. It should also be realized by thoseskilled in the art that such equivalent constructions do not depart fromthe spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appendedclaims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

For a more complete understanding of the present invention, and theadvantages thereof, reference is now made to the following descriptionstaken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:

FIG. 1A is a high-level conceptual block diagram illustrating the systemof the present invention;

FIG. 1B is a detailed block diagram showing the querying of the benefitprovider database, including comparison of service provider file recordsagainst the benefit provider's database, and generation of one or morefiles containing service provider's records and matching records fromthe benefit provider database; and

FIGS. 2A, 2B, and 2C show samples of some of the types of reports thatcan be generated from the file containing service provider claims forwhich there is a matching record in the benefit provider's database.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

In the discussion of the FIGURES, the same reference numerals will beused throughout to refer to the same or similar components. In theinterest of conciseness, various other components known to the art, suchas computer processing equipment, and the like necessary for theoperation of the software, have not been shown or discussed.

In the following discussion, numerous specific details are set forth toprovide a thorough understanding of the present invention. However, itwill be obvious to those skilled in the art that the present inventionmay be practiced without such specific details. In other instances,well-known elements have been illustrated in schematic or block diagramform in order not to obscure the present invention in unnecessarydetail. Additionally, for the most part, details concerning timingconsiderations and the like have been omitted inasmuch as such detailsare not considered necessary to obtain a complete understanding of thepresent invention, and are considered to be within the skills of personsof ordinary skill in the relevant art.

It is noted that, unless indicated otherwise, all functions describedherein are performed by a processor such as a computer or electronicdata processor in accordance with code such as computer program code,software, or integrated circuits that are coded to perform suchfunctions. Additionally, it is noted that the software of the presentinvention can by used at a computer remote from the benefit provider'scomputer system and/or from the service provider's computer system, orlocally to either of these computer systems.

A. IMPROVED SYSTEM

Referring to FIG. 1A of the drawings, the reference numeral 1 generallydesignates an improved eligibility verification inquiry system of thepresent invention. The inquiry system 1 comprises unpaid medical claims100, software 10, benefit provider's database 500, files of matches 400,and reports 450 from the files of matches 400.

Normally, claims 100 for medical care are paid for by a patientdirectly, or submitted to a patient's benefit provider for payment, suchas a private health insurance company, or government-subsidized healthcare insurance, such as Medicare, Medicaid or other government-fundedprograms. After processing to verify such things as whether the personfor whom the service was provided is covered by the benefit provider,whether the services provided are covered by the benefit plan, whetherthe services were rendered during a period the patient was covered bythe benefit provider, and whether the service provider is authorized toprovide services for persons covered by that benefit plan, the benefitprovider will pay the health care service provider for the serviceprovided at a specified rate. However, if any of the numerousrequirements are not met, the claim of the health care service provideris not submitted or processed for payment. When such a query foreligibility status is rejected, the health care service provider canseek to recover the fees due from the patient, or from a patient'ssecondary benefit provider, if any exists. Often, when all otherrecourse has been exhausted, the service provider must absorb the lossand not receive payment for the services provided.

Denial of eligibility for treatment is typically because the serviceprovider is not authorized to provide service for persons covered by aspecific benefit plan, the service provided is not covered by thebenefit plan of the patient, the date on which the service was providedwas not a covered date, or the patient is not covered by the benefitplan. In many cases, the denial is because the information entered onthe claim submitted to the benefit provider by the service providercannot be correlated with the information in the benefit provider'sdatabase, and therefore the claim is returned as ineligible. In reality,in many of these situations, the patient/service date/service providerare eligible claims within the scope of the benefit plan, but there is amistake or difference in the information on the claim and theinformation in the benefit provider's database, and so the claim is notconsidered eligible for reimbursement.

Additionally, while in many cases, a claim 100 must be submitted withina certain time period after service is rendered, if the person becomeseligible retroactively, but after the allowed time period for filingclaims, a request can be made for payment for services that wererendered that would be covered by the benefit plan. Thus, it isimportant to make inquiries as to eligibility status at frequentintervals to determine if a person is eligible while still within thetime period during which a request for payment can be made.

Under certain new laws and regulations, such as the Health InsurancePrivacy and Portability Act (HIPPA), which regulates the insurancebenefit industry, service providers are authorized to access the benefitproviders' databases 500, or to enable other parties to authorize thebenefit providers databases 500 on their behalf to make inquiries as topatient eligibility status. In some instances, if certain specificationsare met as to the software used and other requirements, the benefitprovider must make the information in their database available for suchinquiries without charge. As an example, the software 10 of the presentinvention is fully compliant with the new laws and regulations.

B. OPERATION OF THE PRESENT INVENTION

As shown in FIG. 1B, the software 10 of the present invention providesan analyzer 102 for converting and sorting a service provider's claims100 and for generating a file of claims 200 in a form capable of beingcompared to the database of benefit providers 500 to find records 510that match. The first step in the process encompassed by the software 10is the generation of a file 200 containing the information from theservice provider's unpaid claims 100 by the analyzer 102. Table 1 showsan example of the fields of a claim 100, although it should beappreciated that a variety of different numbers and arrangements offields is possible. The exact fields 100 a to 100 n contained in eachclaim record 100 may vary, depending on what information is available inthe service provider's records, and the information kept in the benefitprovider's database 500.

TABLE 1 Field Example Claim Data Patient ID No. 12345678 Patient LastName Smith Patient First Name John Patient Middle Name Q Patient Date ofBirth Jan. 01, 2000 Patient Address 123 Main St. Patient City AnytownPatient State Texas Patient Zip Code 12345 Patient Telephone No. (214)867-5309 Benefit Plan Name Medicaid Benefit Plan No. Type B Insured'sName Smith, John Q Date of Service Jan. 28, 2004 Service Code ABC1234Service Description Emergency Room Visit Charge Amount 250.00 AmountPaid 000.00 Balance Due 250.00

Once the claim records 100 have been converted by the analyzer 102 tothe proper format in file 200, the software 10 employs processingqueries 300. These processing queries 300 utilize claim records 100within file 200 as the basis of the collection of one or more queries300′, 300″, and 300′″, etc. of the benefit provider's database 500. Eachclaim record 100 in the file 200 will be in the same format so theinformation therein can be compared to the records 510 in the benefitprovider's database 500. The file 200 will be saved by the software 10in a format that can be read and compared to the fields in the benefitprovider's database 500.

The queries 300 contain instructions for comparing the fields 100 a to100 n in each claim 100 in the file 200 with the corresponding fields510 a to 510 n in each record 510 in the benefit provider's database 500of covered persons to determine if they contain matching information.Table 2 is an example of some of the types of queries 300 that can beexecuted using the software 10 of the present invention.

TABLE 2 Name Query Description MC Medicaid number only SSN SocialSecurity number only MC SSN Medicaid & Social Security MC DOB Medicaid &Date of Birth MC FNLN Medicaid & First name, Last name SSN DOB SocialSecurity & Date of Birth SSN FNLN Social Security & First name, Lastname SSN LNFNINV SSN and First, Last Name switched SSN LNMN SSN & Lastname, Middle name replacing First name DOB FNLN G F Date of Birth &First name, Last name & Gender (Female) DOB FNLN G M Date of Birth &First name, Last name & Gender (Male) SSN LN Social Security & Last nameSSN LNFNMIa Social Security & full name, MI SSN LNFNMIb Social Security& last name, first name + MI SSN LNFNMIc Social Security & last name,first name + “ ” + MI SSN LNFNMId Social Security & last name + MI,first name DOB FN4LN DOB & first name, 1st 4 letters of last name SSN4LN SSN & 1st 4 letters of last name SSN LNFNMIe Social Security & lastname + MI, first name DOB LNFNMIa Date of Birth & full name, MI DOBLNFNMIb Date of Birth & last name, first name + MI DOB LNFNMIc Date ofBirth & last name, first name + “ ” + MI DOB LNFNMId Date of Birth &last name + MI, first name DOB LNFNMIe Date of Birth & last name + “ ” +MI, first name DOB LNFN Date of Birth & last name, first name DOBLNFNINV Date of Birth & last name, first name switched DOB LNMN Date ofBirth & last name, middle name replacing first name DOB LNFNHA DOB &first name, 1st half of hyphenated last name DOB LNFNHB DOB & firstname, 2nd half of hyphenated last name DOB LNFNHAB DOB & first name,hyphen/space removed from last name DOB LNFNHS DOB & first name, hyphen-> space in last name SSN LNFNHA SSN & first name, 1st half ofhyphenated last name SSN LNFNHB SSN & first name, 2nd half of hyphenatedlast name SSN LNFNHAB SSN & first name, hyphen/space removed from lastname SSN LNFNHS SSN & first name, hyphen -> space in last name

A query 300 can ask about a variety of information in various fields 510a-n in the records 510 in the benefit provider's database 500. Forexample, a query 300′ could be as simple as checking to determine if theinformation in the patient identification number field 100 a of aservice provider's claim record 100′ in the file 200 of claims matchesthe identification number field 510 a in any records 510 in the benefitprovider's database 500. Or, a query 300″ could be more complex, andsearch for a variety of information matches, or partial matches, inmultiple fields in the records 510 in the benefit provider's database500. For example, the query 300″ could check for claims 100 and records510 in which both the date of birth fields 100 b, 510 b in the file 200and benefit provider's database 500 match, and also the first 4 lettersof the last name fields 100 c, 510 c match. It can be appreciated that avery large variety of queries 300 can be configured and used. Thequeries 300 can be virtually unlimited, as long as the information to bequeried is available in the service provider's records 100 and in thebenefit provider's database 500.

The software 10 of the present invention performs more queries 300, andmore flexible queries of the benefit provider's database 500, andperforms comparison and analysis to determine if there is a matchbetween a claim 100 and record in the benefit provider's database 500,than the prior art software. In contrast, the prior art software madeonly limited queries, such as seeking to determine if the name,identification number and date of birth of the patient claim 100 matcheda record 510 in the benefit provider's database 500.

It is this expanded scope and flexibility that results in the greaternumber of matched records than was found with prior art software. Thesoftware 10 of the present invention, in addition to finding matchingrecords, because it does more queries 300, can also determine additionaldata about a claim 100, such as whether or not the claimed service iscovered, the balance due on a claim 100, and even the amount of thebalance due that is eligible for reimbursement. A surprising number ofmatches between service provider claims 100 and benefit providerdatabases 500 were found using the software of the present inventionthat were not found using prior art software. In one instance, ahospital, making just one set of queries 300, identified several milliondollars in claims that were not previously found to be eligible forreimbursement.

Repeated execution of the queries 300 of the same benefit provider'sdatabase 500 at regular intervals, such as monthly or bi-weekly,continued to reveal claims 100 that were not eligible for reimbursementat the time the initial queries 300 were run, but subsequently becameeligible for reimbursement. It can be appreciated that if these queries300 were not subsequently run, the claims 100 found would not bereimbursed. Additionally, because there is typically a limited timeperiod after a patient becomes eligible for benefits in which a claim100 can be filed, it can be appreciated that if the queries 300 are notrun at regular intervals, while matches could be found, they might befound too late for the service provider to seek reimbursement.

Additionally, it can be appreciated that identifying claims which wouldqualify for reimbursement under certain government medical programswould be important, even if reimbursement were not actually received, inorder to help determine qualification for other government programs,and/or whether budget and funding estimates are accurate. For example,hospitals and other service providers that provide services to a largenumber of patients qualifying for Medicaid and/or Medicare could receivefunding from another government fund for service providers who treat adisproportionate share of low-income patients. By using the results ofthe queries to identify qualifying patients, even if recovery cannot bemade under the initial program, the treatment can be used for reportingand submitting requests for funding under secondary programs, such asthe disproportionate share programs. For example, some patients who aretreated who might qualify for reimbursement under state governmentmanaged programs may be from out of state, and therefore such a claim100 may not be entitled to reimbursement. However, such unreimbursedclaims may be used to qualify the service provider for reimbursementunder secondary programs. The software 10 of the present invention canbe used to provide reports as to the patients treated, anticipated andprojected funding, whether the service provider is treating more or lesslow-income patients than projected, and potential entitlement for futureprograms. This information is very useful to a service provider, asknowing this information can be used to project budgets, deficits andqualification for additional funding.

Typically, the first query 300′ might be to check for a person in thebenefit provider's database 500 having a social security number/otherunique identification number, and/or last name and first name thatmatches that of a patient for whom the hospital had provided services.Exactly which query 300 would be the first query 300′ would depend onhow the benefit provider structures its database records.

Additionally, a query 300 can also be a series of sequential queries.For example, a query 300′ could be done to match the patientidentification field 100 a in a claim 100 with the patientidentification field 510 a for any matching record 510 from the benefitprovider's database 500. If the patient ID number matches, then a secondquery 300″ can be made between these matching records found in responseto query 300′ to determine if the date on which the service was providedfalls within the dates of coverage provided by the benefit provider tothat patient, and only if the answer to the second query 300″ is alsopositive will the record be set aside in the file 400 for furtherprocessing. Alternatively, the system 10 could be configured so that ifthere is a match in the first electronic query 300′, the records couldbe flagged and set aside, and the second query 300″ could be doneseparately in a different query 300 or in or by a different system, orcould even be done manually.

Note the software 10 can be configured so that all the queries 300 whichare selected to be made could be run simultaneously or sequentially, orthey could be grouped together and run sequentially. The purpose ofdifferent orders of queries or grouping of queries is to maximizeefficiency of the software 10 of the present invention. The process inmaking such queries 300 of generally comparable records can also employa variety of techniques, such as fuzzy and soundex searches. It shouldbe appreciated that the queries 300 selected, the order in which theyare performed, and the groupings of queries can be adapted or modified,depending on results returned from the queries 300.

Once the queries 300 to be run have been selected and generated by thesoftware 10, the benefit provider's database 500 is accessed, and thesoftware 10 of the present invention executes the first selected query300′ thereon. If one or more matching records 510′ is found in thebenefit provider's database 500 for a claim 100′, the claim 100′ isdistinguished or flagged, removed from the file 200, and storedseparately from the remainder of the claims 100 in the serviceprovider's database 200 in a file 400, along with the information frommatching records 510′ from database 500. The purpose of removing thematched claim 100′ from the file 200 is to streamline efficiency of thequeries 300. Because one or more matches have already been made, thereis no need to make additional queries 300 about this particular claim100′. The query 300′ will then be performed for the next claims 100″ inthe file 200 of service provider's claims, if any. If matches are found,then this claim 100″ and the matching records 510″ from the benefitprovider's database 500 will also be stored in the file 400. If no matchis found for claim 100″, the claim remains in the file 200. Query 300′will be performed for each claim 100 in the file 200.

If, after making the initial query 300′ of the benefit provider'sdatabase 500, there are still claims 100 in the service provider's file200 that were not correlated with records 510 in the benefit provider'sdatabase 500, there are a variety of optional processes that couldoccur. No additional actions could be taken, and the claims 100remaining in the file 200 would remain as ineligible status.

Alternatively, if there are additional queries 300″, 300′″, etc., thatare in the selection of queries 300 to be made, the next query 300″ canbe made of the benefit provider's database 500 to try and findadditional matches with claims 100 in the service provider's claims file200. Again, for each claim 100 in the file 200, query 300″ will be madeof the benefit provider's database 500, and if any matches is found,that claim 100′″ is flagged, placed in the file 400 and removed from thefile 200 of unmatched claims. The software 10 then continues to make thesame query 300″ for each remaining claim 100 in the service provider'sfile 200. This cycle of querying/record flagging will continue until allclaims 100 in the service provider's claims file 200 have been matchedto at least a record 510 in the benefit provider's database 500, oruntil all queries specified have been made of the benefit provider'sdatabase 500 for all claims 100 in the service provider's claims file200.

Once all the queries 300 of the benefit provider's database 500 havebeen run, the file 400 of all matched records is generated. In the file400, each claim 100 is associated with the related matching record 510from the benefit provider's database 500. For example, claim 100′, fromthe file 200 which was associated with a record 510′ from the benefitprovider's database 500 will be grouped together in the file 400. Thefile 400 can be saved on a computer, or delivered via other methods,such as via the internet, as an attachment to an e-mail, as a facsimile,or as a physical document. A report 450 of contents of the file 400 canbe generated and provided to the service provider so that the eligibleclaims can be submitted for payment by the service provider.

The report 450 can be delivered to the service provider in a variety ofmethods, depending on their preference, including delivery by e-mail, inpaper form, or by internet or a variety of other forms. Reports 450 caninclude a variety of information such as the information from each claim100 in the service provider's database for which any matching record 510in the benefit provider's database 500 was found. FIGS. 2A, 2B, and 2Cshow samples of some of the many reports that can be generated using thesoftware of the present invention.

As can be seen in the report in FIG. 2A, a listing is provided of claimsfor which a match was found in the benefit provider's database. Anyinformation in the service provider's database that was incorrect ordiffered from that in the benefit provider's database is shown indifferent print for assistance in easily identifying the problem so theclaim can be corrected.

As can be seen, the report 450 shown in FIG. 2A is organized so that theservice provider can easily review the information to determine thoserecords having errors, and exactly what the errors are, so the claimscan be corrected and resubmitted. In contrast, the prior art softwaregenerated reports that simply listed names and identification numbers ofpatients for which a match was found in the benefit provider's database500. No sorting of records was done as in the reports of the presentinvention, and no additional information was provided from the benefitprovider's database 500, such as eligibility dates and billingdeadlines, so additional manual analysis was required to determine if aclaim could be submitted for payment. Additionally, because the priorart software did not do any multi-field comparisons or partial matcheswith analysis, records such as the first three shown in the samplereport in FIG. 2A would not have been discovered at all.

A record such as the fourth record shown in the sample report in FIG.1A, which would have appeared as eligible for reimbursement usingsoftware of the prior art, which only checked for a match of identifyinginformation for the patient, would have resulted in a claim that wassubmitted being rejected, because the service type code was enteredincorrectly. Using the software 10 of the present invention, whichchecks to see if the service rendered is eligible for reimbursement,would find the incorrect service code, which could be corrected beforethe claim 100 was submitted for reimbursement.

The fifth record shown in the sample report in FIG. 2A shows a claim 100for which partial payment has been received, but for which there isstill an outstanding balance. The software of the present invention hasperformed analysis to determine that the patient is covered by thebenefit provider, and that the service is eligible for reimbursement.Therefore, the service provider can submit the claim 100 to seek torecover the outstanding balance. The report also shows the amount of theoutstanding balance that is eligible for reimbursement. In this case, itis less than the full amount because the deductible for the benefitprovider has not yet been met by this patient. This claim is also anexample of a claim which has become eligible for benefits since the lasttime a report was run, and lists the date by which any claim must bemade.

The last entry on the sample report of FIG. 2A shows a claim 100 thatwould have been qualified for reimbursement, had it been found andsubmitted in a timely manner. Such results would occur if the queries300 of the present invention were not made on a regular basis.

FIG. 2B shows a pie chart break-out of an example of one instance inwhich the software 10 of the present invention was used showing theamount of claims eligible for reimbursement for a benefit provider,broken out by class of benefit provider the number of claims for eachclass, and the amount of money for the claims for each class. Additionalinformation from the service provider's and benefit provider's recordsthat would be useful to the service provider in submitting the claim isalso provided, such as the deadline, if any, by which the claim must besubmitted.

FIG. 2C shows a report that provides information about claim eligibilityverification for a variety of service providers, including the amountsidentified for the claims, broken out for queries made on a regularbasis. As can be seen, while the number for subsequent queries 300typically decreases, it can be seen that additional eligible claims areidentified when the software 10 is used to make subsequent queries 300.

It should be appreciated that a variety of different reports, reportformats, and information can be used, depending on the needs of theservice provider. The information in the reports 450 can be used for avariety of functions, such as to track errors, and possibly reducesimilar future errors made when submitting claims. Additionally, thereports 450 can be used to monitor query results to determine theeffectiveness of a particular query 300. If a particular query 300 doesnot ever produce any record matches, a decision could be made to notcontinue to make that query 300, or to enhance it in some way so as toincrease the likelihood of obtaining a match.

Depending on the benefit provider's system, claims for which a match wasfound can be filed on-line, and/or a manual submission of claims forwhich payment is requested can be made.

The software 10 can be modified continually or periodically to ensurecompliance with various local, state and/or federal laws, depending onwhere it is used. Additionally, because the world of medical service andbenefit providers is rapidly and continuously changing and evolving, thesoftware 10 of the present invention has been designed to be flexibleand adapt to ongoing changes in the industry.

C. EXAMPLES

It is appreciated that some examples may be helpful in illustrating thefeatures of the present invention. If a service provider, such as ahospital, had a large number of claims 100 for services it had providedto patients (i.e. an emergency room visit, a hospital stay, etc.), thesoftware 10 of the present invention could be used to inquire as to thestatus of the claims 100. The software 10 would first be used togenerate a file 200 in the appropriate form that contained informationfor each claim 100. For purposes of this example, assume that there are90 (ninety) claims 100 in the file 200.

The software 10 would also be used to develop a series of one or morequeries 300 that could be made of the benefit provider's database ofmembers to find members of the benefit provider's plan for whom theservice provider had rendered service, but has not yet been reimbursed.Again, only for purposes of this example, assume that there are 2queries to be made against the benefit provider database 500,sequentially, and a third query to be made for all records which wereentered in file 400.

Typically, the first query 300′ might be to check for a person in thebenefit provider's database 500 having a social security nuter/otherunique identification number, and/or last name and first name thatmatches that of a patient for whom the hospital had provided services.Exactly which query 300 would be the first query 300′ would depend onhow the benefit provider structures its database records.

Such an initial standard query is useful to patients eligible forreimbursement. In some situations, there is a delay in a patient beingentered into a benefit provider's database, so if the claim is submittedto the benefit provider for payment before the patient has been added tothe database, the claim 100 status will be returned as ineligible.Additionally, for some medical benefit programs, such as Medicaid andthe Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), coverage canbe retroactive. Similarly, in these situations, the patient may notappear in the database of persons qualifying for benefits under thatplan when the patient is treated, or the database may indicate that thepatient was not covered on the date the service was rendered. However,if the patient is added to the benefit provider's database subsequently,the claim will only be shown as “eligible” if the claim is re-submittedafter the patient is in the benefit provider's database 500. In someinstances, it has been found that several years can elapse before aclaim 100 becomes eligible for reimbursement. However, in many cases,there is only a limited time allowed after a patient becomes eligiblethat claims 100 can be submitted to the benefit provider. Thus, queries300 of the benefit provider's database 500 must be made on a regularbasis so that eligible claims 100 can be identified in a timely manner,while the claim 100 can still be filed.

Another example of situations in which the patient may not appear in thebenefit provider's database 500 when a claim is first submitted is fornewborn babies. Such patients do not always have a unique ID number,such as a social security number, at birth. In some cases, there is evena delay in the patient being given a name, and the hospital records maysimply refer to the child as “Baby Boy Smith.” Thus, the hospital maynot have the proper information available to it to be able to generate aclaim with information that matches the benefit provider's database 500.Even if the hospital had the correct name or identifying information,these patients are not added to the insurer's database until after thechild is born, and there is typically a delay in such informationgetting entered into the database. Thus, the hospital could submit aclaim 100 immediately after the child is born, and there could be norelated record 510 in the benefit provider's database 500 at that time.Thus, these claims 100 are often not paid because they cannot, bematched up with a patient in the benefit provider's database 500. Again,making eligibility inquiries of the benefit provider's database on aregular basis will reveal that the patient has been added to thedatabase 500 and the claim 100 is eligible for reimbursement.

Another example of claims 100 that this query 300′ might find a matchfor would be an instance where the benefit provider matches records bypatient name, rather than patient identification, and the benefitprovider has a patient in its database 500 as John Smith, but theservice provider submitted a claim for service provided to John Smithe.Because the benefit provider did not find John Smithe in its database,it originally rejected the claim as ineligible; however, because thepatient IDs match, this query would make a match.

Once the queries 300 have been selected, the software 10 can beconfigured to run the selected queries 300 against the benefitprovider's database 500 to find records that match any of the claims 100in the file of the service provider's unpaid claims 200. Again, forpurposes of this example, assume that the first query 300′ is to find anexact match between the patient ID fields of any claim 100 in the fileof the hospital's claims 200, and any patient record 510 in the benefitprovider's database 500. Assume that when query 300′ has been run, andthe data in each of the ninety claims 100 in the service provider's file200 has been compared to the records 510 in the benefit provider'sdatabase 500, twenty of the claims 100 are found to have matchingrecords 510 in the benefit provider's database, therefore being eligiblefor reimbursement. When a match is found for a claim 100′ in the benefitprovider's database, that claim 100′ and the information from thematching record 510′ in the benefit provider's database 500 is placed ina file 400. Each claim 100 which has been matched to a record 510 fromthe benefit provider's database 500 is removed from the file 200 afterquery 300′ has been run and completed. Thus, after the first query 300′has been run, only seventy claims 100 will remain in the file 200.

For purposes of this example, assume the second query 300″ is a query tofind claims 100 in the seventy remaining claims in the file 200 forwhich the date of birth field is the same as the date of birth field ina record 510 in the benefit provider's database 500, the first namefields are the same, and the first four letters of the last name fieldare the same. This query would find patients for whom the patient ID wasentered incorrectly, but the name and date of birth information wascorrect. Thus, if for patient Thomas Jones, his ID number wasincorrectly entered in the service provider's claim as 12345679, but theactual ID number was 12345678, the first query 300′ would not find amatching record 510 in the benefit provider's database 500. However, thesecond query 300″ would find a matching record 510.

After the first query 300′ has been run, the second query 300″ is runfor the remaining seventy claims 100 in the file 200. Assume this queryresults in another twenty claims 100 being matched with one or morerecords 510 in the benefit provider's database 500. Each of these twentyclaims is also removed from file 200 and placed in file 400, leavingonly fifty claims 100 in the file 200. It can be appreciated that withqueries 300″ such as this, multiple matches could be found with personshaving the same date of birth, first name, and last four digits of thelast name, and therefore, multiple records 510 could be returned thatpotentially match a claim 100.

When all the queries 300 have been run, the software 10 will exit thequery of the benefit provider's database 500, and a file 400 of allmatched records is generated. In the case of this example, file 400contains forty claims 100 for which one or more matches has been made inthe benefit provider's database 500. The file 400 contains theinformation from each claim 100 for which a matching record 510 in thebenefit provider's database 500 was found, and the information from thematching record(s) 510 in the benefit provider's database. A report 450of contents of the file 400 can be generated and provided to the serviceprovider so that the matched claims can be submitted to the benefitprovider.

However, in the case of this example, the software runs a query 300′″ onall forty records in the file 400 to determine if the date by which aclaim must be submitted for reimbursement is later than the presentdate. If not, that claim could be flagged in the file 400 as being apast deadline claim. Or, it could be a query that would check foradditional matching fields between claims 100 that have generated morethan one matching record 510 from the benefit provider's database 500.It can be appreciated that this query could have been made as part ofthe first or second queries 300′, 300″ of the benefit provider'sdatabase 500, or as a separate query 300 of the benefit provider'sdatabase 500. However, again, only for the purposes of this example,assume that it was found to be much more efficient to make this datequery 300′″ after file 400 had been generated, rather than as a query tothe benefit provider's database 500. Additionally, such informationabout claims qualifying for payment could be important for trackingwhether a health care service provider qualifies for reimbursement fromother programs, such as disproportionate share Medicaid or Medicarereimbursement funds, as discussed above. If this query was performedbefore the claim 100 was placed in the file 400, the claim 100 might notbe placed in the file 400, and therefore it could be difficult to trackthis type of information when preparing reports to determinequalification for the additional programs. Alternatively, it can beappreciated that further inquiries such as this could be made manuallyupon review of the report 450 of matching files 400. Again, how suchanalysis is performed depends on the specific needs of a user.

If appropriate, additional analysis can be made of the serviceprovider's claims 100 and any matching records 510 from the benefitprovider's database 500 to determine if there are additional fields thatmatch between the record in the benefit provider's database and theclaim to ensure the patient is the same entity. For example, if multiplerecords 510 are returned that same date of birth, first name, and first4 digits of the last name, additional analysis can be done to look foradditional matches in other fields, or determine the probability that aspecific record 510 matches a specific claim 100′.

In one arrangement of the present invention, queries 300 can be run ofthe benefit provider's database 500, with charges being incurred on aper query basis, as per the prior art software. In another arrangementof the present invention, because the software 10 of the presentinvention complies with the requirements of the new laws governing suchqueries 300, the queries 300 can be run without charge for the number ofqueries run, or the number of times queries are run. If the queries 300are made by a third party on behalf of the service provider, payment tothe third party can be made based on the number of claims 100 that arematched to database records 510, and for which payment is received bythe service provider.

It is understood that the present invention can take many forms andembodiments. Accordingly, several variations may be made in theforegoing without departing from the spirit or the scope of theinvention. Having thus described the present invention by reference tocertain of its preferred embodiments, it is noted that the embodimentsdisclosed are illustrative rather than limiting in nature and that awide range of variations, modifications, changes, and substitutions arecontemplated in the foregoing disclosure and, in some instances, somefeatures of the present invention may be employed without acorresponding use of the other features. Many such variations andmodifications may be considered obvious and desirable by those skilledin the art based upon a review of the foregoing description of preferredembodiments. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the appended claims beconstrued broadly and in a manner consistent with the scope of theinvention.

1-10. (canceled)
 11. A tangible, non-transitory computer program productfor comparing a service provider's medical care claims against a benefitprovider's database, the computer program product having a computerreadable medium with a computer program executable by a computerembodied thereon, the computer program comprising instructions which,when executed by the computer, cause the computer to perform thefollowing operations: a. generating a first file of claims from theservice provider, wherein said first file is organized such that dataassociated with at least two fields for each of the claims is formattedfor comparison with the benefit provider's database, wherein the atleast two fields are different from each other; b. executing a firstquery of the benefit provider's database using data from one of said atleast two fields for a claim in the first file and executing a secondquery of the benefit provider's database using data from another of saidat least two fields for said claim, wherein at least one of said firstquery and said second query includes data from different fields amongsaid at least two fields for said claim; c. adding said claim to asecond file if a record in the benefit provider's database is responsiveto said first query and said second query; and d. generating a reportindicative of one or more differences between said claim for which aresponsive record was found and said responsive record.
 12. The tangiblecomputer program product of claim 11 wherein dissimilar information fromsaid claim is shown in different print than information from saidresponsive record.
 13. The tangible computer program product of claim 12wherein said dissimilar information from said claim shown in differentprint is on a separate line of said report than said information fromsaid responsive record.
 14. The tangible computer program product ofclaim 11 further comprising instructions for generating a reportindicative of the effectiveness of said first query and said secondquery in finding responsive records.
 15. The tangible computer programproduct of claim 11 wherein either said first query or said second queryuses data that includes a social security number and the first fourletters of a last name.
 16. The tangible computer program product ofclaim 11 wherein either said first query or said second query uses datathat includes a social security number, a first name, and a last namewith the first and last name switched.
 17. The tangible computer programproduct of claim 11 wherein either said first query or said second queryuses data that includes a date of birth, a first name, and a last namewith the first and last name switched.
 18. The tangible computer programproduct of claim 11 wherein either said first query or said second queryuses data that includes a social security number, a first name, andeither a first half or a second half of a hyphenated last name.
 19. Thetangible computer program product of claim 11 wherein either said firstquery or said second query uses data that includes a social securitynumber, a first name, and a removed hyphen or space in a last name. 20.A tangible, non-transitory computer program product for comparing aservice provider's medical care claims against a benefit provider'sdatabase, the computer program product having a computer readable mediumwith a computer program executable by a computer embodied thereon, thecomputer program comprising instructions which, when executed by thecomputer, cause the computer to perform the following operations: a.generating a first file of claims from the service provider, whereinsaid first file is organized such that data associated with at least twofields for each of the claims is formatted for comparison with thebenefit provider's database, wherein the at least two fields aredifferent from each other; b. for a plurality of claims in the firstfile, executing a first query of the benefit provider's database usingdata from one of said at least two fields and executing a second queryof the benefit provider's database using data from another of said atleast two fields, wherein at least one of said first query and saidsecond query includes data from different fields among said at least twofields; c. adding respective ones of said plurality of claims to asecond file if a record in the benefit provider's database is responsiveto either of said first query or said second query; and d. generating areport indicative of the effectiveness of said first query and theeffectiveness of said second query in finding responsive records. 21.The tangible computer program product of claim 20 further comprisinginstructions for generating a report indicative of one or moredifferences between a claim in said second file and a record foundresponsive to said first or second query.
 22. The tangible computerprogram product of claim 20 further comprising instructions for sortingclaims in said second file based on either an eligibility date or abilling deadline for a provided service.
 23. The tangible computerprogram of claim 20 wherein at least one additional query is executedafter a predetermined time period.
 24. A tangible, non-transitorycomputer program product for comparing a service provider's medical careclaims against a benefit provider's database, the computer programproduct having a computer readable medium with a computer programexecutable by a computer embodied thereon, the computer programcomprising instructions which, when executed by the computer, cause thecomputer to perform the following operations: a. generating a first fileof claims from the service provider, wherein said first file isorganized such that data associated with at least two fields for each ofthe claims is formatted for comparison with the benefit provider'sdatabase, wherein the at least two fields are different from each other;b. executing a first query of the benefit provider's database using datafrom one of said at least two fields for a claim in the first file andexecuting a second query of the benefit provider's database using datafrom another of said at least two fields for said claim, wherein atleast one of said first query and said second query includes data fromdifferent fields among said at least two fields; c. adding said claim toa second file if a record in the benefit provider's database isresponsive to said first query and said second query; d. sorting saidclaim among other claims in said second file based on either aneligibility date or a billing deadline for a provided service; e.generating a report indicative of one or more differences between saidclaim for which a responsive record was found and said responsiverecord, wherein dissimilar information from said claim is shown indifferent print than information from said responsive record; and f.generating another report indicative of the effectiveness of said firstquery and the effectiveness of said second query in finding responsiverecords.